This appendix summarizes the methods used by Westat to
conduct the 2000 Surveys of Employee and Establishments (1). For both surveys, summaries of the questionnaires,
sample designs, data collection procedures, response rate calculations, and
weighting activities are presented. In addition, this Appendix includes a
discussion of issues related to comparing the surveys to the 1995 Surveys of
Employees (2) and Establishments
(3) as well as the methods used to
define key measures used in the analysis (e.g., coverage and eligibility under
the Family and Medical Leave Act).

1. 2000 Survey of Employees

1.1 Questionnaire

The instrument for the 2000 Survey of Employees
consisted of five major sections: (a) the screener, which served to classify
potential respondents as being either "leave-takers," "leave-needers," or
"employed only" since January 1, 1999; (b) a series of items specifically for
leave-takers which asked about their experience with leave; (c) items for
leave-needers regarding why they needed leave and did not take it; (d) items
asked of all respondents, including items about their employment and their
opinions about family and medical leave; and (e) items obtaining demographic
information on respondents. The questionnaire for the 2000 Survey of Employees
is shown in Appendix D.

1.2 Sample Design and Population Universe

The survey was conducted with a sample of individuals
aged 18 or older in U.S. households who were employed at any time between
January 1, 1999 and the time of the survey (between 18 and 20 months, depending
on when the interview occurred). The sample was drawn from the universe of all
known U.S. households with telephones. The sample frame represented all
employees that had a telephone. This includes those employed in both the public
and private sectors. Approximately 24,500 telephone numbers were selected using
a list-assisted Random Digit Dial (RDD) method.

For each telephone number, an interviewer attempted to
screen for eligibility by determining whether the household contained at least
one person 18 years of age or older who had been employed since January 1,
1999. Furthermore, for all persons within a household meeting these criteria,
the interviewer attempted to determine if they had taken (or needed without
taking) family or medical leave since January 1, 1999. All persons said to have
taken or needed this type of leave were eligible for the extended interview.
Those not having taken or needed leave (i.e., those who were employed only)
were sub-sampled for the extended interview.

1.3 Data Collection and Response Rates

Data for the Survey of Employees were collected by
interviewers specially trained for the project using a Computer Assisted
Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system. Interviewing began on July 15, 2000 and
continued for approximately 10 weeks. A total of 2,558 interviews were
completed: 1,229 with persons who took leave (for reasons covered by FMLA)
since January 1, 1999; 203 with persons who needed leave (for a covered reason)
but did not take it; and 1,126 with persons that were employed only and had not
taken any family or medical leave.

The response rate for the Survey of Employees was
computed in three steps. In the first step, a response rate was calculated for
the screening interview, which identified eligible respondents in the
household. In the second step, a response rate was calculated for the extended
interview, which collected the data from the selected household respondent. In
the third step, the two response rates were combined to produce the overall
survey response rate.

Calculating the Screening Interview Response
Rate. The weighted response rate for the screener ranged from 67.5 percent
to 69.3 percent. The range reflects different assumptions made about the
eligibility of those telephone numbers where no respondent ever answered the
telephone.

The lower screener weighted response rate (67.5%) was
calculated using the following formula:

This assumes that a residential household existed for 27
percent of those calls where someone never answered the telephone and for 60
percent of those calls where the interviewers only encountered an answering
machine. This is the standard formula used by Westat when computing response
rates for random digit dial surveys. It is based, in part, on guidelines
published by the Council of American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO). It
modifies these guidelines by reducing the number of "no answers" that are
classified as eligible, based on research tracking telephone numbers through
the telephone company.

The higher response rate of 69.3 percent was computed
using the following formula:

C/(C+R+M + ONR)

This formula excludes the calls where someone did not
answer the telephone (NAs above), but includes calls that reached an answering
machine. This rate is comparable to the method used by the University of
Michigan for the 1995 survey.

Calculating the Extended Interview Response Rate.
The final weighted response rates for completing the extended interviews
represent the proportion of interviews that were completed among those eligible
and selected for the study. The rates, calculated separately for each type of
respondent, were:

Extended Interview Response Rate

Overall:

84.2%

Leave-taker

83.9%

Leave-needer

85.3%

Employed only

84.2%

Calculating the Final Response Rate. The final
response rate is computed by multiplying each respective extended interview
response rate by the screener response rate. For this step , the higher
screener response rate of 69.3 percent was used to maintain comparability with
the 1995 survey. The final weighted response rates for each type of respondent
were:

Final

Overall:

58.3%

Leave-taker

58.1%

Leave-needer

59.1%

Employed only

58.3%

1.4 Weighting

For each interview, a sampling weight was attached which
was derived from the following components:

A base weight reflecting the overall probability of selection of the
household;

An adjustment for the number of telephones in the household;

A non-response adjustment for the household (i.e., screener) based on
census data for the telephone exchange;

The probability of selection of the person within the household;

A non-response adjustment for the person, based on age and gender;
and

A post-stratification adjustment to the gender distribution of the
U.S. non-institutional population, based on U.S. Census figures.

The post-stratification adjustment was done for several
reasons. First, it inflated the population estimates from the survey to reflect
all households in the country, including those without telephones. Second, by
using the U.S. Census totals, the estimates incorporate a correction for
undercounting particular subgroups in the population.

The 1995 Survey of Employees followed a very similar
process in the weighting with two exceptions. It did not adjust for the number
of telephones in the household (step b), and it did not implement a
poststratification adjustment (step f).

In order to maintain comparability for analyses between
1995 and 2000 data, both of these adjustments were done for the 1995 survey
weights. All of the 1995 weights were globally down-weighted using an estimate
of the average number of telephones per household in U.S. households in 1995
(approximately a factor of 92.5%). The weights were then inflated separately by
gender to reflect the same post-stratification factors used for the 2000
data-set (factor 1.06 for females and 1.12 for males).

1.5 Estimates of Variances

Appendix B provides the standard errors and unweighted
sample sizes for each of the estimates published in the report. The standard
errors were computed using replicate variance estimation methods. The program
used to estimate the standard errors was a Westat-authored program, WESVAR. The
variance estimation procedures account for both the complex sample design and
the use of weights in the estimation process.

1.6 Comparisons Between 1995 and 2000 Surveys of
Employees

As noted above, efforts were made to keep the 1995 and
2000 surveys as comparable as possible. Nevertheless, the comparisons between
the surveys may still have been affected by several differences between the two
surveys. This section discusses two of these differences: (1) differences in
the response rates, and (2) differences in question wording for key items. This
section also discusses the implications of these differences for comparing the
1995 and 2000 surveys.

1.6.1 Differences in Response Rates

The 1995 survey had a combined response rates of 73.1
percent for leave-takers, 75.9 percent for leave-needers, and 70.6 percent for
those who were employed but did not take any leave. This is between 11 and 16
percentage points higher than the 2000 survey, depending on the group
(4). The differences in response rates
may have led to different patterns of non-response error across the two surveys
(5). In order to investigate the extent
that comparisons are affected by the response rate differentials, several
analyses related to the non-response were conducted. The results of these
analyses are reported in full detail in the main methodology report for the
survey (in press). In this section, the primary results from these analyses are
reported.

Three different types of non-response analyses were
conducted. Each provides a different perspective on the potential non-response
problems in the 2000 survey. The analyses, and the non-response problem they
are designed to address, include:

Demographic distribution comparison. This should reveal any
differences in the types of respondents captured in each survey.

Non-response follow-up survey. A survey of a sample of
non-respondents to the 2000 survey was completed. This provides a direct
measure of a sample of persons that the main survey missed.

Level-of-effort comparison. A comparison of differences
between respondents to the 2000 survey by the level of effort it took to
complete the interview. The assumption in this analysis is that those that
required the most effort to interview resemble those that the survey was unable
to interview.

In the section that follows, the comparison of the 1995
and 2000 demographic distributions is discussed. In the last part of the
section, the results from the other two analyses are described, along with
conclusions related to the potential non-response error.

Comparing Demographic Distributions

Table C-1 displays the weighted levels of the three
groups analyzed in the 1995 and 2000 surveys (i.e., leave-taker, leave-needer,
and all employees) by whether they work for a covered establishment and by
their eligibility status. Table C-2 displays the unweighted demographic
distributions of the three groups. The unweighted responses are used so that
none of the non-response or post-stratification adjustments embedded in the
weighting influence the observed distributions. The "all employees" column was
standardized to the distribution observed in the 2000 survey. (6)

These distributions show relatively small differences
across the demographic groups. The largest differences are for gender and
income. The 2000 survey found more females and higher income groups. Both of
these differences can be partially explained by trends over the five year
period between the two surveys. As noted in the introduction to the report,
women constitute a greater proportion of the workforce in 2000, relative to
1995. Similarly, the higher income of those in 2000 reflects inflation and
actual growth in income over this time period.

(1) Asian was not a race category in
the 1995 survey. Asians are included in "All Others." * Difference between
years for leave-takers is significant at p<.10; ** is significant at
p<.05. + Difference between years for leave-needers is significant at
p<.10; ++ is significant at p<.05. x Difference between years for
all employees is significant at p<.10; xx is significant at p<.05. Note: "All employees" was calculated by weighting leave-takers by 16.5%,
leave-needers by 2.4% and employed-only by 81.1%. Column percents may not total
to 100% due to rounding.

There are several differences that are not as easily
explained by trends in employment. Leave-takers for the 2000 Survey were more
likely to be in the older age groups. In addition, the 2000 survey has a lower
proportion of persons that are white (for employees 78.5% vs. 81.1%), a lower
proportion with less than high school education (5.4% vs. 8.4%), and a higher
proportion that are never-married (20% vs. 16%).

Overall, therefore, the 1995 and 2000 survey samples
differ in terms of demographics. However, considering shifts in the economy
over the time period, these differences are relatively small and do not
indicate large differences in non-response error between the 1995 and 2000
employee surveys.

Results of Other Analyses and Comparisons to the 1995
Data

Two other analyses were conducted to assess non-response
error. One analysis was based on a survey of persons that did not respond to
the 2000 survey. The other analysis was of the 2000 survey information by the
amount of effort it took to complete the interviews (i.e., number of contacts
to complete and whether respondent initially refused to complete).

These analyses did not find a great deal of evidence
that non-response error significantly affects the comparisons between the 1995
and 2000 surveys. Two general patterns were detected. The first was that
non-response to the screener was slightly more likely to have occurred among
households without employed persons. This could have led to overestimating the
number of employed persons on the 2000 survey. The second pattern was that
non-response at the extended level may have been more likely among selected
demographic groups. The most significant differences implied that
non-respondents were more likely to be age 18-24 and male. Other, less
consistent patterns implied that non-respondents to the extended interview were
employees with children and with less than a college degree. No consistent
differences were found across a number of outcome variables, such as coverage
status, eligibility status, whether the employee heard of FMLA and whether the
leave-taker reported a serious health condition for their longest leave.

Comparing the 1995 and 2000 surveys should be done with
caution. While the analyses summarized above are standard ways to assess
potential non-response error, these methods all rely on untested assumptions
about those persons that are never interviewed. With this caveat in mind, the
analyses discussed above provide little indication that significant
non-response bias exists when comparing the 1995 and 2000 employee surveys.

1.6.2 Differences in Survey Instruments

The 1995 and 2000 survey instruments are very similar.
In most cases, comparable items are worded identically in both surveys. The
primary differences between the two surveys are additional questions included
in the 2000 survey. For example, the 2000 survey included items about the
details for the longest and second longest leaves reported by the respondent.
The 1995 survey only asked detailed questions about the longest leave.

There are two exceptions to this general rule. First,
the initial items used to classify respondents as a leave-taker or leave-needer
were modified in 2000 (7). In 1995, the
item read:

Since January 1, 1994, have you taken leave from work
to care for a newborn, newly adopted, or new foster child; for your own serious
health condition or the serious health condition of your child, spouse, or
parent that lasted more than three days or required an overnight hospital
stay?

In 2000, the item was changed to read:

Since January 1, 1999, have you taken leave from
work

to care for a newborn, newly adopted, or new foster child;

for reasons related to your or a family members pregnancy; or

for your own serious health condition or the serious health condition
of your child, spouse, or parent? A serious health condition is one that lasted
more than 3 days or required an overnight hospital stay.

One difference between the two surveys is that the 2000
item included the extra condition "for reasons related to your or a family
members pregnancy" (see second bullet above). This change was made to
clarify that pregnancy disability leave is covered by the FMLA.

A second difference is the modification of the
sentences defining a serious health condition. In 2000, this definition was
split out as a separate sentence (see second sentence in the last bullet
above). In 1995, this was stated as part of the last phrase of the item. This
change was made to clarify that such leave is conditioned upon taking time off
for more than three days or for an overnight hospital stay.

The second questionnaire item that was changed asked
about the size of the establishment for which the respondent worked. These
items were used to classify respondents into a covered and non-covered status
with respect to the FMLA. In 1995, this item read:

At the place where you work(ed) (i.e., the site¾ store, building) would you say there were fewer
than 50 permanent employees or 50 or more permanent employees?

In 2000, the word "permanent" was dropped from the item.
This change was made because the Act does not require that employees be
permanent for the establishment to be covered by the Act.

1.6.3 Caveats for Comparing the 1995 and 2000 Survey
of Employees

Given the differences in response rates between 1995 and
2000, as well as the above questionnaire changes, some caution should be
exercised when estimating change between the two surveys. The areas of concern
related to the analyses discussed in this report are described below.

Changes in the Number of Employees

Households that refused to complete the 2000 screener
tended to consist of persons that were not employed during the reference
period. All other things being equal, this would lead to a higher estimate of
the total number of employed persons in the 2000 survey. As a result, comparing
the 1995 and 2000 surveys may overestimate the amount of growth in employment
over this time period. This is reflected in changes observed in the Current
Population Survey (CPS). The CPS, which measures employment over a one week
period in each month, estimated growth in employment from 125 million in 1995
to 133 million in 2000 (difference of 8 million). Comparing the two FMLA
surveys, which measure employment over an 18-20 month period, the growth is
from 127 million to 144 million, a growth of approximately 17 million.

A larger estimate of the growth in the number of
employees may lead to overestimates of growth in important subgroups, such as
covered employees and covered and eligible employees.

Estimates of Covered Employees

The proportion of persons who were covered by the FMLA
increased from 66 percent to 77 percent, based on estimates from the 1995 and
2000 employee surveys. This increase diverges from results from the 1995/2000
Survey of Establishments and data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
neither of which found a change in the proportion covered by FMLA.

The change observed between 1995 and 2000 may reflect
the more inclusive wording of the item on establishment size in the 2000 Survey
(8), rather than a true increase in
covered employees. A comparison of this estimate to that from the 2000 Survey
of Establishments suggests that the estimate from the Employee survey is too
high, although it is difficult to estimate the magnitude of any over-estimate
because the two sources of information are not directly comparable.

Regardless of the precise accuracy of the number of
covered employees estimated from the 2000 Survey of Employees, it is likely
that the estimate of change between 1995 and 2000 using these data is an
over-estimate.

Covered and Eligible Employees

The estimates of covered and eligible employees are
computed by restricting the covered population to those that worked at least
1,250 hours over the previous 12 month period (9). As noted above, the estimate of change for the
proportion and number of covered employees may be an over-estimate.
Consequently, the estimate of change for the number of covered and eligible
employees may also be an overestimate.

Covered and Eligible Leave-Takers

The estimates of covered and eligible leave-takers is
computed by restricting the covered leave-takers to those that worked at least
1,250 hours over the pervious 12 month period. As noted above, the estimate for
the proportion and number of covered employees may be an over-estimate.
Consequently, the estimate for the number of covered and eligible leave-takers
may also be an overestimate. Comparisons between 1995 and 2000 of these also
over-estimate the change.

Characteristics of Leave-Takers

The non-response analysis suggested that some of the
changes in the characteristics of leave-takers were due to differential
non-response patterns across demographic groups. While the analysis did not
find a great deal of evidence of a large non-response bias in this regard, it
does not totally rule it out either. For example, some of the observed increase
in the proportion of female leave-takers may be due to the lower response rate
for males in the 2000 survey.

The change in the screening instrument (described above)
may have also affected the reasons respondents reported they took leave. As
noted in the report, the proportion of persons that reported taking leave for a
serious health reason decreased between 1995 and 2000 (61.4% in 1995 vs. 47.2%
in 2000; see Table 2.7). One possible explanation for this pattern is the
addition of the extra phrase in the screener referring to " reasons
related to your or a family members pregnancy" (see above discussion).
Respondents in 1995 might have reported pregnancy-related leave as their own
serious health condition.

Analysis of the data from the survey does not seem to
indicate that this change was major reason for the decrease in the proportion
reporting a leave for a serious health condition. First, while the reasons for
leave shifted, the demographic distributions of the samples did not shift
significantly (as discussed above). If the screener was the cause of the shift,
one would have expected those individuals who tend to take this type of leave
(e.g., women, married persons) would constitute a larger portion of the sample
than expected. More women were interviewed in 2000. However, most of this
increase can be explained by changes in the labor force. Furthermore, the
decrease in the number of leaves taken for personal health related reasons
occurred across almost all demographic groups (see Chapter 2). For example,
while females are less likely to take leave for their own health condition,
both females and males showed a significant decrease in taking this type of
leave between 1995 and 2000. If the screener affected how leave-takers were
initially identified, this effect seems to have occurred across all demographic
groups.

Second, if this change were responsible for the decrease
in leaves taken for the employees own health, then one would expect the
shift to occur primarily in the categories related to pregnancy and maternity.
However, as described in Chapter 2, this shift occurred across all of the other
reasons, including care for ill parent and care for ill spouse (e.g., see Table
2.7).

It is also possible that the shift in the distribution
of the reasons for leave is at least partly due to re-structuring the screening
item that defined a "serious health condition." As noted above (section 1.6.2),
the statement defining a serious health condition was changed by separating the
definition into a separate sentence to clarify that this type of leave is
dependent on specific conditions. These conditions were in the 1995 question,
but were not separated into a separate sentence as in 2000. One possible
scenario is that this change resulted in respondents in 2000 using a more
restrictive definition for serious health condition (e.g., reporting leave as a
result of more severe conditions). If true, then respondents may have reported
relatively fewer leaves for their own illnesses in 2000 relative to 1995.

If the restructuring of the item in 2000 had this type
of effect, one would have expected some change in the demographic distribution
of leave-takers between the two surveys, since certain groups are more likely
to take leave for this type of reason (e.g., younger, males, non-married
employees). As noted above, the changes observed in the demographics were
relatively small. On its face, therefore, the change in the questions is
not clearly related to the changes observed on the two surveys. However,
analysis of changes in the demographics is not definitive and more research
into this hypothesis needs to be conducted.

In summary, it is possible that changing the screening
question, and the associated questions on the extended interview, did affect
the reasons employees reported for taking leave. Analysis reported above does
not find strong evidence for this. However, as noted in chapter 2, there also
is not a clear substantive explanation for why there was a decrease in reports
of "serious health conditions" between 1995 and 2000. Further research,
investigating both the substantive and methodological causes for the change,
needs to be conducted before definitively explaining this trend.

2. 2000 Survey of Establishments

2.1 Questionnaires

The 2000 Survey of Establishments was conducted using
two instruments, administered at separate points in time (both questionnaires
are shown in Appendix D). First, the screener served to confirm that the
establishment still existed and, if necessary, obtain the correct name,
address, and phone number for the business. Second, the screening instrument
obtained the name, address, telephone number, and fax number of the person most
knowledgeable about employee benefits for that establishment. This person was
then recruited for the extended interview. Often, this individual was at a
location other than the sampled establishment. Finally the screener confirmed
that the establishment did in fact have employees and was neither a government
nor a quasi-governmental organization.

The second instrument, the extended questionnaire,
collected the data of interest for the project. This questionnaire was similar
to that used in the 1995 project and repeated many of the same questions. The
wording of most items remained the same so that valid comparisons could be made
between the two surveys. The discussion below points to several key changes
that may affect the comparisons between the surveys.

2.2 Sample Design and Population Universe

The sample for the 2000 Survey of Establishments was
designed to cover all private business establishments excluding self-employed
without employees, government and quasi-government units (federal, state, and
local governments, public educational institutions, and post offices). Note
this universe differs from the employee survey, which includes both private and
public employees. The sample frame was the Dun and Bradstreets Duns
Market Identifiers (DMI). This is considered to be the most comprehensive
commercially available list of U.S. businesses. Most out-of-scope
establishments could be identified using information available on the DMI.

The sample frame was stratified by establishment size
and by industry grouping (five groups). The five industry groups were formed by
grouping establishments using their Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
codes as given below:

The sampling strata were then defined by
cross-classification of the size classes and 5 SIC groups.

As is commonly done in an establishment survey, larger
establishments were sampled with a higher probability than smaller
establishments. This ensured that enough large establishments would be
available for analysis. All estimates in this report adjust for over-sampling
large establishments by weighting establishments by their probability of
selection in order to produce unbiased estimates of establishments in the
United States (see Section 2.4).

2.3 Data Collection and Response Rates

The 2000 Survey of Establishments was conducted in two
phases. As noted above, establishments were first screened to confirm their
eligibility and obtain contact information for the person said to be most
knowledgeable about employee benefits. This person was contacted a few weeks
later for the main survey interview. All data were collected by interviewers
who were specially trained for the project. Interviewing for the main study
began on July 13, 2000 and continued for approximately 10 weeks. A total of
1,839 interviews were completed.

The final weighted response rate for the 2000 Survey of
Establishments was 65.0 percent. This combines both the screener and extended
interview response rates.

2.4 Weighting

Weighting for the 2000 Survey of Establishments involved
three main steps:

Assigning sampling base weights equal to the reciprocal of the
probabilities of selection;

Adjusting the base weights to compensate for non-response in the
screener and extended interviews; and

Post-stratifying the weights so that weighted counts from the survey
agreed with Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) establishment counts (10) within broad size and industry groups.

2.5 Estimates of Variance

Appendix B provides the standard errors and unweighted
sample sizes for each of the estimates published in the report. The standard
errors were computed using replicate variance estimation methods. The program
used to estimate the standard errors was a Westat-authored program, WESVAR. The
variance estimation procedures account for both the complex sample design and
the use of weights in the estimation process.

2.6 Comparing the 1995 and 2000 Surveys of
Establishments

This section describes the issues related to comparing
the 1995 and 2000 Surveys of Establishments, including their response rates and
survey instruments.

Response Rates

The weighted response rate for the 1995 survey was 73.2
percent. This is 8.2 percent higher than the 65.0 percent achieved on the 2000
survey. At the time of writing this report, a detailed analysis of the possible
effects these differences have on the estimates has not been completed. The
reader should therefore be cautious when making comparisons between the two
surveys.

Survey Instruments

The 2000 survey instrument was based primarily on that
used for the 1995 survey. In most cases, differences between the two
instruments reflect questions added to the 2000 instrument. Two questions were
changed, however.

The first change was to reorder responses to the series
of items about benefits provided under the FMLA by employers (Q6 series; see
instrument in Appendix E). This question asked employers about policies
covering five of the reasons employees could take leave under the FMLA (e.g.,
own serious health reason). In 2000, the order of reasons was:

To care for a newborn;

For adoption or foster care placement;

For the employees own serious health condition other than
maternity-related conditions;

For mothers for maternity related reasons; and

For care of a child, spouse, or parent with a serious health
condition.

In 1995, the order of these items had been (3), (4),
(1), (2), and (5). Items were reordered to help respondents understand the
question by grouping together the health related conditions.

The second change was made to one item within the series
that asked whether different administrative activities were easy or difficult
(Question 28 series; see Appendix E). In the 1995 survey, this item read:
"coordinating the Act with pre-existing leave policies," while in the
2000 survey, the item was changed to read: "coordinating the Act with other
leave policies." This change was made because coordinating with pre-Act
leave policies was no longer relevant in 2000.

3. Survey Definitions of Coverage, Eligibility and
Use of FMLA

Throughout the report, estimates are presented on
worksites that are covered by the FMLA, employees who are eligible under the
FMLA and leave-takers who have taken leave under the FMLA. This section
describes how these were defined for purposes of the analysis.

3.1 Employee Survey

The employee survey identified persons who were employed
between January 1, 1999 and the time the interview was completed (between
18 and 20 months). This subsection describes how FMLA-related estimates were
defined in the analysis of the Survey of Employees.

Coverage and Eligibility

To determine coverage under the FMLA, the respondent was
asked whether his/her employer had at least 50 employees within 75 miles of the
worksite (Question C15). If the answer to this question was "yes," the
respondent was defined as covered under the Act. This operational definition is
not in precise conformance with the requirements of the FMLA. The Act defines
an employee as working for a covered employer when the business has at least 50
employees. The definition used on the survey, however, did not include those
situations when a worksite did not have 50 employees within a 75-mile radius,
but was part of a business that did have employees at other worksites and thus
would have met this criteria. This may have pushed the estimate of the number
of covered employees downward.

Employees were classified as being eligible under the
Act if the respondent reported working at least 1,250 hours in the previous 12
months (Question C17). This also does not conform precisely to the definition
of eligibility in the FMLA. The Act also specifies that the employee must have
worked for the same employer for at least 12 months and have worked at
least 1,250 hours for that employer within the past 12 months.

Characteristics of Leave-Takers and
Leave-Needers

Leave-takers were asked to report about any leaves that
occurred since January 1, 1999 and the time of the interview (Section A of
the questionnaire). Leave-takers were asked detailed questions about the two
longest leaves that occurred during this period (e.g., reason for leave and
length of leave). Summary information was collected for any other leaves that
were taken during the reference period. To determine whether the leave-taker
was covered under the FMLA, the respondent was asked about the size of their
employer at the time of the longest leave (Question C15). To determine
eligibility, the respondent was asked about the number of hours worked at the
time of the longest leave (Question C17, C20).

A similar definition was followed for leave-needers.
These respondents were asked about all of the times they needed but did not
take leave during the survey reference period (Question B1). If more than one
leave was needed, the respondent was asked detailed questions about their most
recent need for leave. To determine whether the person was covered under the
FMLA, the respondent was asked about the size of the employer he/she was
working for at the time the most recent leave was needed (Question C15).
Similarly, to determine eligibility under FMLA, the respondent was asked about
the number of hours worked for the employer at the time the most recent leave
was needed (Questions C17  C20).

Characteristics of Employed Population

The employed population was defined as all of the
leave-takers, leaven-needers, and all others who were employed but did not take
or need leave between January 1, 1999 and the survey. To determine the
coverage and eligibility of the "employed-only" group, the respondent was asked
about his/her current employer (Question C15). If the respondent was not
currently employed, he/she was asked about the employer he/she had worked for
the longest period of time since January 1, 1999 (Question C17-C20).

Leaves Taken Under the FMLA

To determine if a leave-taker had taken leave under the
FMLA, the respondent was first asked if he/she had heard of the FMLA (Question
C3). If the respondent said "yes" to this question, he/she was then asked if
the longest leave reported was taken under the FMLA (Question C6). The number
of persons that took leave under the FMLA was estimated by counting those
persons who:

Reported taking leave under the FMLA;

Were defined as working in a covered worksite; and

Were classified as being eligible under the law.

3.2 Establishment Survey

The Establishment Survey also provided estimates of the
number of FMLA-covered establishments and the number of persons taking leave
under the FMLA. This sub-section briefly describes how these were defined for
the estimates discussed in the report.

Coverage

An establishment was classified as being covered under
the FMLA if the respondent reported as having at least 50 employees within a 75
mile radius of the worksite. As with the employee survey, this definition is
not in strict conformance to the definitions under the Act. See the discussion
of coverage for the Employee Survey above for more details.

Note that this definition defines as "non-covered" those
establishments that report fewer than 50 employees within a 75-mile radius of
the worksite but reported on the survey as being covered under the Act. Some of
these establishments actually may be covered because the business has some
other worksite that meets the coverage criteria. As indicated above, 16 percent
of establishments that were classified as non-covered by this definition
reported in the survey that they were covered by the Act. To be consistent with
the 1995 analysis, these establishments were not classified as covered. To the
extent that these firms are in fact covered, estimates of FMLA coverage of
employee and employers based on the establishment survey are too low.

Exploratory analyses were conducted that examined the
characteristics of these establishments and the implications of including them
as "covered" for selected findings discussed in the report. These analyses
found that:

Approximately half of these establishments reported having more than
one worksite. Theoretically, then, somewhere between 50 percent and 100 percent
of this group of establishments could be covered under the law because they
have more than 50 employees across all sites (11).

The leave policies for these establishments resemble those that were
defined as "covered" in the report. A majority of them report providing up to
12 weeks of leave for many of the FMLA reasons (e.g., see Table 5.1). Counting
all of these establishments within the covered category decreases the estimate
of the number of non-covered establishments providing leave consistent with the
FMLA requirements. This also reduces the estimate of the number of covered
establishments that provide this type of leave.

The finding that the proportion of non-covered establishments with
leave policies consistent with the FMLA has increased between 1995 and 2000 is
not affected when re-classifying these establishments as covered (e.g., see
discussion in section 5.1.1; Appendix Table A5.2).

Leaves Taken Under the FMLA

To estimate the number of leaves taken under the FMLA,
the respondent was asked to provide data for the period between January 1, 1999
and the interview. The establishments estimated number of leaves taken
could include multiple leaves for the same person. The estimate uses these data
by aggregating this item for those establishments that reported they were
covered by the law and that were classified as being covered based on the size
of their establishment.

As noted in the report (Section 3.5.1), a number of
establishments had difficulties retrieving this information from their records.
Approximately 45 percent of covered establishments did not provide these data
at all. These establishments were excluded from the estimates for the amount of
leave taken under the FMLA.

(4) It is important to note the difference between
non-response error and a low response rate. A low response rate increases the
chances that significant non-response error exists. However, non-response error
occurs only when the non-respondents actually differ from the respondents along
the characteristics that are important to the survey. For example, a recent
analysis comparing two surveys which differed by approximately 20 percentage
points did not find significant evidence of more non-response error for the
survey with the lower response rate (Keeter, et al., 2000). Similarly, analysis
of a large survey on welfare reform came to similar conclusions when comparing
results among estimates based on response rates that differed by as much as 20
percentage points (Groves, et al., 1997).

(5) For example, it is possible that the 2000 survey
missed more employed males in the populations that took leave for family and
medical reasons. This would affect the comparison of leave-takers by gender
between the 1995 and 2000 surveys. The extent that this may be the case depends
on the differentials in response rates by gender between the two surveys.

(6) For this purpose, the leave-takers were counted as
16.5 percent of the total employed population, leave-needers as 2.4 percent and
employed-only as 81.1 percent. These percentages approximate what was observed
for the 2000 distribution across these groups.

(7) These items were asked during the screener
(referring to each person living in the household) and the extended interview
(referring to the respondent).

(8) The definition used in the survey is not in precise
conformance with the requirements of the FMLA. The Act defines an employer as
covered only when the employer has 50 or more employees for at least 20
workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year. The survey, however,
counted as covered all establishments with at least 50 employees within 75
miles of the sampled location. Thus, the survey did not count as covered those
employers with at least 50 employees beyond 75 miles of the sampled location.

(9) The employee eligibility test also requires
employees to work at a location where at least 50 employees are employed within
75 miles. This part of the eligibility requirement was actually applied when
classifying establishments as covered or not covered. Requirements also include
12 months for same employer which we did not take into account.

(10) BLS data used for this purpose are derived from
the Covered Employment Wages program.

(11) This group of establishments was defined as
non-covered in the report because they have fewer than 50 employees within 75
miles of the worksite. For these establishments to qualify as covered under the
FMLA, there would have to be another worksite that increased the total number
of employees for the business over the minimum of 50 required by the law.